Evangelicals: How do you know you have "Saving Faith"?

[guanophore]

So tell me “geezer,” does what Jesus said in Matt. 24:18-20 directly apply to you?So you’re under the impression that Paul’s “gospel” was his own? Read Gal. 1:11-12. Are you under the impression that Paul’s writings are not theopneustos (God breathed)?

No, Paul’s gospel is from Christ. For that reason, it cannot be separated from the gospel that He preached before his death. ALL the scriptures are thopneustos, that means the words of Jesus must be taken into account alongside of Paul’s writings. The criticism you are getting is that you elevate the teachings in the Pauline writings, and debase all the other scriptures (in terms of understanding salvation, I mean).

When Paul wrote to Timothy that the scriptures were able to instruct him unto salvation, he was talking only about the OT (the New not having been written yet). So, according to Paul, we should be able to understand God’s plan of salvation without any NT!

 

[Truthstalker]

So, according to Paul, we should be able to understand God’s plan of salvation without any NT!

Sounds a lot like Sola Scriptura to me. I don’t think you meant to say that, Guanophore.

Where Apo is making a big error is in insisting that the old covenant was purely a matter of law rather than being a foreshadowing of the new; believers in the OT were saved by faith just as believers under the new are. There are no seperate Moses, Jesus and Paul Gospels. There is only one Gospel and only one way to be saved - through Christ, whether before His mediation on the Cross or afterwards.

Read the psalms. David was clearly convinced he had saving faith and had no doubt about going to heaven when he died. He was saved by grace through faith just as someone today is - not by works, lest anyone boast. The problem here is that to a Protestant some Catholics seem to be defending Pelagianism. I don’t think you really are, but from some of the posts, and looking at them through Protestant eyes, I would think someone could believe that is the case. Nor does Apo seem to believe you punch a ticket at the altar call and that is it. There seems to be a tendency to polarize and take positions you may not really hold - on the one hand insisting on works to the point of Pelagianism, and on the other faith to the point of antinomialism. I suspect you are talking past each other.

 

[guanophore]

If you can stop microanalyzing Scripture long enough to see the big picture, you will find the same consistent message from Genesis to the Apocalypse of John, sometimes hidden, but there nonetheless.

I don’t think one needs to “stop microanalyzing” to see the big picture. Both things can happen.

That message is that we are to love God and love our neighbor; that our love of God, whom we cannot see, is made manifest in our love of our fellow man (who is made in the image and likeness of God), whom we can see; that we will be judged on our obedience to these two commandments, and that the judgment will be whether we will spend eternity basking in the glory of God or burning in the fires of hell, not what size mansion we will get in heaven.

If mankind were able to accomplish this by just “seeing the big picture” then there would have been no need for Jesus to come, and more less, to be crucified.

The rest of Scripture (and the teachings of the Catholic Church) are primarily to direct us imperfect humans toward obedience to these commandments and thus to salvation. Some details may have changed when we went from the OT to the NT, but the meat of the message is the same, was relevant then, and is relevant now.

Doesn’t this support teh notion that we should study that scripture, to show ourselves approved unto God?

To me, the attempts to define the sometimes legalistic terms that Paul used, and to determine exactly what such things as justification, sanctification and glorification are and when they occur, are distractions from the real message that God has given man through the Scriptures and through His Church.

Well, more power to ya geezerbob, of you can apprehend the message of salvation by grace through faith without these doctrines. I think most of us without them, however, would erroneously fall into the belief that we can be saved by our works.

We have taken a simple and direct message and have made it needlessly complicated.

I think Apophasis would say the same about your perspective on salvation.

The words of the Bible become much less confusing when read with these two great commandments foremost in our minds. Christ’s crucifixion and death afforded us the means of obtaining salvation, but in no way released us from from the requirement that we be obedient in order to obtain that salvation. Anyone who interprets Paul to mean something other than that is indeed putting (his interpretation of) the pupil before the teacher.

Jesus taught that greater things than He did, would we do, because He goes to the Father. If He had completed everything, then He wouldn’t need Apostles, or a church. God revealed certain specific truths to Paul to help us to fulfill those two great commandments. I agree with you that Apophasis overemphasizes the Pauline doctrines, and discounts other passages about salvation. However, don’t overcompensate by throwing out what Paul has to say either!

 

[guanophore]

I understand Paul’s epistles, but in the context of Jesus’ teachings, not as a gospel unto themselves. I see no reason to believe that your interpretation of Scripture is any more authoritative or correct than mine or, more importantly, than the interpretation of the Church to which Jesus entrusted such interpretation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You just got done saying you saw no point in studying all that legaleze in Paul!? It does not sound like you are interested in interpreting the Pauline Gospel of salvation by grace through faith…

Context has nothing to do with answering the question about which of Christ’s teachings are irrelevant to Christians. If you misspoke, just say so.

Apophasis did not mispeak. He knows very well, as you do not appear to know, that context is what is used to determine how the passages are to be applied.

And, here we go again with the “saving faith.” You have faith or you don’t. Are there two kinds? Where are they defined in the Bible? What’s the difference between the two? How do you know which you have? What’s the process of accepting God’s grace and moving from one kind to the other?

I know this question is directed to Apo, but I would like to throw in something here. Faith is part of the human psyche. Even completely irreligious or agnostic people exercise faith. When I cross the room, and turn to sit in a chair, I have faith that the chair is there to receive me, even though I am not looking at it, or touching it at the time. Such a faith (expectant belief) will not “save” me from eternal damnation.

Thanks, I’ll just continue to accept His grace and continue to obey His commandments as best I, an imperfect human, can. Jesus said that’s what I must do to be counted among the sheep on judgment day and I’ll take His word for it over yours or anyone else’s.

The epistles of Paul are His word too, geezerbob. I am not trying to discourage you from working out your salvation with fear and trembling, but blocking out part of what God has to say about salvation will not help your journey.

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Originally Posted by apophasis:
Closely associating one’s self with a society of true believers can result in experiencing a degree of “sanctification,” but those men, negatively described in Hebrews chapter ten, never fully committed themselves to the faith.

Guanophore: This is statement has to rank up there with the most preposterous things you have ever said, apo. I thought when you said that Jesus did not have much of anything valid to say about salvation I had heard it all. But NO! I have yet to hear more!

First I’m falsely accused of saying that everything Jesus said before the cross was irrelevant, now you falsely accuse me of stating that Jesus did not have much of anything valid to say about salvation. I said neither! In fact, when it comes to eternal life Jesus had much to say, for example:John 3:14-18 "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."Do a study on Christ’s words concerning ETERNAL life in John’s Gospel account. And keep in mind that the life the believer receives through faith in Christ is ETERNAL. It means “everlasting;” which means “never ending.” Why? Because the life the believer receives is the resurrected (never ending) life of Christ.

It’s when you try to build salvation doctrines on Christ’s parables that you error. How is it that you claim to fully understand His parables but yet fail to grasp His straight teachings on eternal life through faith in Him alone?

Be assured that no one can be sanctified who is not first justified.

Depends upon the context. As I pointed out in 1 Cor. 7 Paul makes the statement that the unbelieving husband is “sanctified” through his believing wife. In this context sactified means neither salvation or justification. In fact Paul goes on to say:1 Cor. 7:16 “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”

Such a person is most definitely on the path to salvation.

Paul says you cannot know. And the only “path” to salvation is through faith in Christ alone (Jn. 14:6).

Originally Posted by apophasis: Such men are found in every church fellowship, even to this day.

Guanophore: You mean , people being sanctified (being mady holy by the blood of Jesus and the power of the HS) who are not saved!?

NO! Fence-sitters. Those who assemble and fellowship with true believers but have never truly committed themselves to faith in Christ, therefore having never been sanctified in Christ.Acts 26:18 “…to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’”

Heb 10:10 “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Heb 10:14 "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."Contextually, the sanctification in the above verses is a totally different “sanctification” than that which Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 7 and the unbelieving husband.

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Just semantics, Apo. To you, salvation is an event that happens at one point in time (at justification). But Catholics do not separate the parts of salvation from each other. One can give up one’s birthright as a son, as did Esau, and the prodigal son. A person who does not endure the daily disciplines of a son will not be saved.

Nowhere in the Scriptures does it state that God disciplines in order to save. He sent His Son into the world in order to save. Salvation comes through faith in Christ. Godly discipline is reserved for those ARE His sons through faith in the Son whom He sent (see Jn. 1:12; 1 Jn. 3:1-2).

Esau did not give up his sonship. Nor did the prodigal son. Typically you’re trying to form your salvation doctrine on inappropriate passages.

They are all parts of the same event. Beginning with justification, sanctification building upon it, resulting in glorification. They cannot be separated.

Actually, I agree. Justification, sanctification (in Christ) and glorification are part and parcel of the same salvation event in one’s life. In fact God, who transcends time, see it all as past tense (Rom. 8:30). The saved in this life go through an experiential process of sanctification, and expectantly wait for the glorification of their yet unredeemed bodies, but salvation itself is not a process but a divine GIFT bestowed fully at the time of personal belief (trust) in Christ alone.

They may have become fence sitters, but they were converts at one time:

No, “guano,” they’re called fence-sitters because they will not commit to a saving faith in Christ. They refuse to trust in Him alone. They desire to return to a religious process instead.

Sin makes us enemies with God. One who is lost in sin is an enemy of God, and needs reconciliation. Life is found in Christ, and outside of Him, there is no life, so the dead needs to be reconciled with God that he might find life.

I completely agree. But in the parable of the prodigal son, he is not portrayed as an enemy of his father, but a rebellious son in desperate need of his father’s grace. As I said in a previous post, the parable of the prodigal son is more of a portrayal of national Israel’s spiritual plight (Zach. 12:10). To whom did He tell the parable?

 

[apophasis]

guanophore:

Which do you think came first, the beliefs, or the writings about the beliefs?

Non sequitur. Men believed through the verbal message of the cross of Christ once delivered by the Apostles. Subsequent generations believe through the God-breathed, Holy Spirit inspired, writings. Faith must have a source. In the first century they had the eyewitnesses. We have the teachings of those eyewitnesses preserved in Holy Writ.

If faith is not a gift from God, then what is it, or where does it come from?

It’s a pesonal, inward response to the message of Christ.John 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.Sounds like there’s a personal responsibility involved here to me. Jesus doesn’t say “he who is gifted faith is not judged” and “he who is not gifted faith is judge already…” Catholics always boast about being warriors of “freewill.” Where’s the freewill in your scenario if one cannot believe unless God gifts him such ability?

WAIT!! You said you didn’t believe in faith achieved by cooperative efforts on man’s part! I saved the post, in case you forgot.

First of all I said salvation is not achieved through the cooperative efforts of men. And go back and read the CONTEXT of my post. I was reiterating the Catholic belief in respect to probationary salvation (probationary meaning “not final”).

Why do you suppose Jesus was fond of saying “your faith has saved you” ?

Because the time would shortly come when salvation would be based on their faith in Him alone. They, by faith, came to Him for physically healing, but after His death, burial and bodily resurrection back into glory, they would have to come to Him by faith alone for spiritual healing - eternal life. It’s called saving faith, Guano. Personal faith in Christ alone.

I think it is true that people must repent and believe before they are baptized, but baptism is salvific.

And yet Scripture bases salvation on faith alone, and those who believed were subsequently baptized. Hence, only the saved are to be baptized. So, logically, baptism is a public profession of one’s inward faith, but baptism itself does not save: “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”

I would be curious to hear what you have to say about this passage in Col 2:10-14. The Apostle seems to teach here that baptism replaces circumcision, and that it is actually Christ who performs this ritual initiation into His Body. In Baptism, the body of flesh is “put off”, we are buried with Him, and raised with him. We are “made alive and forgiven”. This is infused grace.

Nowhere in the passage does it say ritual, water baptism replaces circumcision. If that was the case, then only believing Jews are to be baptized since only Jews were commanded to be circumcised according to the Abrahamic covenant.

Verse 12 says “having been buried with in in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.”

Water baptism testifies to the work of God in which he crucifies and buries the “old self” (i.e., all who the believer was in Adam) with Christ, and subsequently raises him to new life in the resurrected Christ (the second “Adam”; Rom. 6; Eph. 2:4-7; Col. 3:1-3).

But, ultimately, it’s the work of God the Holy Spirit who Himself baptizes the believer into the Body of the resurrected Christ (1 Cor. 12:13). And this “working of God” is THROUGH FAITH (not water), as verse 12 states.

 

[apophasis]

]
You are saying that whatever Jesus taught about salvation in parables has little impact, since He had not yet been crucified.

In context I asked:

Can you show me where Jesus teaches specifically about justification, redemption, propitiation, identification, sanctification, etc. in the parables?

And I qualified this question with:

I’m not saying Jesus didn’t teach about salvation. In fact He spoke a lot about eternal life through faith in Him alone. And He specifically presented Himself as the object of salvation faith. But He did not disclose to them the “doctrines of salvation” which could only be presented and fully understood AFTER His sacrificial, substitutionary death, burial, bodily resurrection and ascension. ALL on which the “doctrines of salvation” are based.

It is YOUR assumption (not mine) that everything Jesus taught in the parables was in the context of salvation.

 

[apophasis]

Truthstalker:

Where Apo is making a big error is in insisting that the old covenant was purely a matter of law rather than being a foreshadowing of the new;

The O.T. was purely a matter of Law!!! Yes, it foreshadowed the New in that its sacrificial system prefigured the once for all, final sacrifice of the Son of God through which He would forever put away sin:Heb 9:26 "Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.But as Paul clearly states:Rom 3:21-24 "But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;The old covenant of Law, TS, could save no one. Paul clearly teaches this throughout his Epistles.

believers in the OT were saved by faith just as believers under the new are.

Absolutely!!! Men have always been saved through faith alone, even those who were under the Law. Because on the basis of faith alone God Himself reckons a believer righteous (justified):Rom. 4:5 "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited (reckoned) as righteousness,"Paul cites both Abraham (who was not under the covenant of Law) and King David (who was) as BOTH being reckoned righteous by God through faith alone.

There are no seperate Moses, Jesus and Paul Gospels.

Moses himself was saved by grace through faith, but through him came Law - not grace. Jesus taught eternal life through faith in Him alone. Paul’s gospel (doctrines of salvation), however, is based on, rooted in, the once for all sacrifice and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

He, in his Epistles, discloses what God accomplished, once for all, through the cross on behalf of the one who trusts in Christ alone.

There is only one Gospel and only one way to be saved - through Christ, whether before His mediation on the Cross or afterwards.

There is and always was only one way to be saved and that is and always was “through faith” in God. But the object of “saving faith” during this Church age is the Theanthropic Man (God-Man), Christ Himself (Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16; 3:22, 26; Eph. 1:15; Col. 1:4).

 

[guanophore]

First I’m falsely accused of saying that everything Jesus said before the cross was irrelevant,

I read that, but I did not agree with that. I can tell from your posts that you have chosen certain of his teachings to e relevant.

now you falsely accuse me of stating that Jesus did not have much of anything valid to say about salvation. I said neither!

I must have misunderstood, then.

It’s when you try to build salvation doctrines on Christ’s parables that you error.

This must be where I misunderstood you! It was not ALL of Jesus teaching on salvation, but only the parables that should not be taken into account when developing doctrine on salvation?

How is it that you claim to fully understand His parables but yet fail to grasp His straight teachings on eternal life through faith in Him alone?

I never claimed to fully understand His parables. You know that we just have different perceptions of salvation. In the Catholic view, justification (by faith) is not separated from sanctification (by obedience) or glorification (persisting until the end). For the Catholic, eternal life is like a river. One can get in and out of it. The river itself is eternal, but each person can decide, at any point, whether one wants to remain in the river, or get out.

As I pointed out in 1 Cor. 7 Paul makes the statement that the unbelieving husband is “sanctified” through his believing wife. In this context sactified means neither salvation or justification. In fact Paul goes on to say:1 Cor. 7:16 "For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?"Paul says you cannot know. And the only “path” to salvation is through faith in Christ alone (Jn. 14:6).NO! Fence-sitters. Those who assemble and fellowship with true believers but have never truly committed themselves to faith in Christ, therefore having never been sanctified in Christ.

Acts 26:18 “…to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me.’”
​

Can you please explain what sanctification DOES mean in this context?

Contextually, the sanctification in the above verses is a totally different "sanctification" than that which Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 7 and the unbelieving husband.

I agree with you, but am not sure where it fits in your soteriology. You have told me where it doesn’t fit. The last time I said something about you “dispensing” with certain scriptures to maintain your soteriology you got very offended, so this time, I am going to assume that you found a place to fit this concept.

Nowhere in the Scriptures does it state that God disciplines in order to save. He sent His Son into the world in order to save. Salvation comes through faith in Christ. Godly discipline is reserved for those ARE His sons through faith in the Son whom He sent (see Jn. 1:12; 1 Jn. 3:1-2).

This is arguable. I think maybe not on this thread, though.

Esau did not give up his sonship. Nor did the prodigal son. Typically you’re trying to form your salvation doctrine on inappropriate passages.

No, but they gave up the rights they had as sons. Just as we do not “give up” that we are made in the image and likeness of God, we can reject the salvation that was purchased for us on the cross, and fail thereby to inherit the privileges that God intended for His offspring. I am forming a salvation doctrine on ALL the passages. I don’t think it is appropriate to leave some of them out! Your Pauline based doctrines on salvation are wonderful, but should not exist in isolation of what the rest of the NT says about salvation, including parables.​

 

[guanophore]

Actually, I agree. Justification, sanctification (in Christ) and glorification are part and parcel of the same salvation event in one’s life. In fact God, who transcends time, see it all as past tense (Rom. 8:30). The saved in this life go through an experiential process of sanctification, and expectantly wait for the glorification of their yet unredeemed bodies, but salvation itself is not a process but a divine GIFT bestowed fully at the time of personal belief (trust) in Christ alone.

Well, at least we agree on something. Among us are “those wo are being saved”. How is this not a process? Or “working out salvation with fear and trembling”.

No, “guano,” they’re called fence-sitters because they will not commit to a saving faith in Christ. They refuse to trust in Him alone. They desire to return to a religious process instead.I completely agree. But in the parable of the prodigal son, he is not portrayed as an enemy of his father, but a rebellious son in desperate need of his father’s grace. As I said in a previous post, the parable of the prodigal son is more of a portrayal of national Israel’s spiritual plight (Zach. 12:10). To whom did He tell the parable?

I don’t disagree with your perception of the audience for the parable. But, as with all the parables, it has many levels of meaning. As persons grafted into salvation, we have become attached to the root of the stump of Jesse. We are a branch that can also be cut off, and we can forsake the gift that was purchased for us. We can be like that prodigal, and refuse to return to the father’s grace.

 

[Odell]

.No, “guano,” they’re called fence-sitters because they will not commit to a saving faith in Christ. They refuse to trust in Him alone.

NO apo they are consecrated to the blood of Christ (saved)

let me post the verse again.
(Heb 10:26)

“If WE sin deleberatly after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins.”

WE including PAUL the author says that if he or we sin deliberatly what Cahtolics call mortal sins there is no longer a sacrafice for his sins.

So much for Jesus dieing for the sins yioiu diliberatly do

You have to realize that Paul is in this equation and acording to you those in this equation are fince sitters.

my question to you was Paul at the moment he wrote this book was he a fince sitter, who has not fully comitted to Jesus?

dosnt sound like a saving faith to me what you think?

verse 29 “Do you not think a worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, cosiders unlean the covenantblood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace.”

verse 30 WE know the one who said.

there is your word we again.

context context context.

PAUL is just as much in this equation as the suposed fince sitters.

how do you explain this?

 

[guanophore]

NO apo they are consecrated to the blood of Christ (saved)

let me post the verse again.
(Heb 10:26)

“If WE sin deleberatly after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins.”

WE including PAUL the author says that if he or we sin deliberatly what Cahtolics call mortal sins there is no longer a sacrafice for his sins.

So much for Jesus dieing for the sins yioiu diliberatly do

I have to side with my brother Apophasis on this one. Jesus died for ALL our sins, even deliberate sins. Jesus died for Peter’s denial, even though He knew all the Apostles would abandon Him, and that Peter would disown Him. He forgave Peter. Jesus is still the perfect sacrifice for sins, deliberate or not. However, for the unrepentant, there is no sufficient sacrifice. We see with Judas, who committed the same sin as Peter, Judas did not accept the forgiveness/sacrifice of Christ.

You have to realize that Paul is in this equation and acording to you those in this equation are fince sitters.

my question to you was Paul at the moment he wrote this book was he a fince sitter, who has not fully comitted to Jesus?

dosnt sound like a saving faith to me what you think?

Apo thinks Paul just talks like this because he is “trying to be humble”. According to Apo, Paul already knows he is saved, and just says these things so that he won’t come across as presumptuous.

verse 29 “Do you not think a worse punishment is due the one who has contempt for the Son of God, cosiders unlean the covenantblood by which he was consecrated, and insults the spirit of grace.”

verse 30 WE know the one who said.

there is your word we again.

context context context.

PAUL is just as much in this equation as the suposed fince sitters.

how do you explain this?

I have not finished reading the thread, but knowing Apo, and the OSAS position as I do, he will say that these verses are not about the saved. They are written to fellow Jews, to whom the covenants have been made, and promises given, and they refuse to accept their saviour.